Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  keep . -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon enquiry and further reflection, I am changing this to No Consensus. After discounting all the WP:SPA input, NC seems like a better summation of the arguments.  It's all somewhat moot, since a NC close results in the article being kept anyway.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources - all I could find were obituaries, which do not satisfy the requirement. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian  Paul  18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep She was the world record holder. the previous AfD of similar record holder (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) result was keep, in the same way as this article should be keep. also, I gave an improvement in the problems of this article. --Inception2010 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:NOPAGE. Almost half of the article is about the mechanics and trivia of verification, plus the fascinating fact that she and her husband were interviewed together for the 1920 census. Wow! The rest is pedestrian details of everyone's life: born, married, worked, died. EEng (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to List of the oldest verified people. Nothing here justifies a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep World's oldest human is good enough. also record holders of world's oldest living person usually have an article.153.151.83.197 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete and redirect per EEng and David in DC's rationales above. I might also suggest that we add one or two-sentence descriptions of the listed persons to the "List of the oldest verified people", thus obviating the perceived need for many of these "oldest person" articles for non-notable subjects.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong and Obvious Keep Was the oldest living human in the world as well as the oldest person ever from Puerto Rico at the time of her death. 930310 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not obvious unless you can show us something that would go in the article to counter the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep World's oldest person who was covered extensively in world-wide media press. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan has been a notable person not only as the oldest ever verified woman from Puerto Rico, but also as the GWR-verified world's oldest person. The amount of press coverage is here thus not a surprise. Keep beyond reasonable doubt.White Eaglet (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment and Request -  Please note that there is no such specific notability guideline for "oldest person," and any reliance on such a non-existent guideline or precedent is misplaced.  All such "oldest persons" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as other suitability guidelines such as WP:NOPAGE, in order to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia.   You are respectfully requested to provide links to what each you believe are the three best examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per GNG, so other editors may evaluate whether such persons are notable.  Thank you.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The individual was documented as the "oldest documented person in the world" in an article with the reliable and verifiable sources needed to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to think this is WP:A7. AfD isn't about verifiability of "a claim"; it's about SIGCOV, plus justification of a standalone article escaping NOPAGE. Can you speak to that? EEng (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This article has ample coverage and detail about the subject in an article that is the length, size and scope of most of our five million articles. Let me know if you have any further mind-reading regarding my intent or if you have any more acronyms and abbreviations to toss out. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mind-reading wouldn't be necessary if you would express yourself intelligibly. First you talked about "support [for] the claim of notability", which isn't part of the criteria at AfD—‌actual notability, not a claim of notability, is what matters here, and that's the SIGCOV issue to which you still haven't spoken. Now you've shifted to talking about "length", "size" (which I guess you distinguish from "length") and "scope", which might be persuasive if the content of this article wasn't largely, as it is, fluff such as
 *  according to documents compiled in March 2004... after the death of Mitoyo Kawate, although German American Charlotte Benkner, who was about 3½ months younger, had been given recognition in the meantime... They were interviewed together in the 1920 United States Census when she was 30... In 1948, her birth certificate was signed at Utuado, certifying that she was born at 7:00 AM on September 1, 1889. However, a baptismal certificate of April 1890 (found in 1992), revealed that she was actually born the day before, on August 31, 1889. The 1910 United States Census recorded her aged 20. Her marriage to Alfonso Soler on December 26, 1912, aged 23 is recorded by certificate on December 28, 1912... The Guinness World Records accepted her claim, documentation meeting their standards, and on March 29, 2004, she received a document from them, declaring her the world's oldest living woman. She joined José Miguel Agrelot, Wilfred Benítez and a handful of others as the only Puerto Ricans to enter that book.
 * -- none of which tells us anything about her. EEng (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC
 * , feel free to cut out your patronizing crap. I've read the article and I've reviewed Wikipedia policy at length over the past decade. This article makes a rather clear claim of notability, is supported by reliable and verifiable sources and provides significant coverage of the article's subject. Cutting-and-pasting portions of the text does nothing to convince me otherwise, mainly because I've already read the article. Here and elsewhere, turning your levels of dripping arrogance down from 11 will be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Temper, temper! You keep saying you've read the article, understand policies and guidelines, and so on, but you never actually express any opinion matched to those policies/guidelines. In cases like this I hold little hope of converting you to my point of view, rather my posts are directed at helping others not be confused by what you say. You're still arguing as if notability is the only test for a subject's having a standalone page, and that's just not right, as mentioned over and over: the NOPAGE issue needs to be addressed as well. Showing how much of the article is irrelevant fluff, by quoting it as above, helps others to see that. EEng (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reply here further solidifies the image of you that I have in my head as Q. Temper temper mon capitan! Canadian   Paul  23:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still back at Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock, but I surmise this is a compliment. EEng (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't it make it any more valid. Simply ignoring the fact that the article makes a clear claim of notability, backs up that claim with reliable and verifiable sources in a comprehensive article does not make an argument for deletion. It merely constitutes an ignorance of reality. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reality? Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not an epistomologist! EEng (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For purposes of stand-alone articles on Wikipedia, "notability" has nothing to do with "a clear claim of ntoability notability," and everything to do with multiple examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. That's not nonsense -- that's what the guideline says.  Furthermore, when notability is established, that creates a presumption, not a guaranty of a stand-alone article.  Discussion participants may still decide that a given subject may be better covered as part of another article or list.  This is all explicitly laid out in GNG.  You may want to review it again.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's give significant a numerical value, shall we! I'm recommending TEN reliable sources anything less and it's toast!!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I admire your persistence, and that of EEng, in simply ignoring, misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've said. You can repeat the same crap over and over again, but you haven't convinced me or anyone else. This is an article that meets every aspect of the standard of Wikipedia notability (or what you call "ntoability"). Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You admire our persistence in ignoring, misinterpreting and misrepresenting? You certainly have odd objects of admiration! EEng (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've participated in over 600 AfDs, and I have a pretty good grasp of the concepts of notability. I also recognize deflection and ad hominem arguments when I read them.  As a lawyer, I recognize the rhetorical tactics -- and so would any parent of an 8-year-old.  On several occasions in the recent AfDs related to this topic, you have protested your 10 years of Wikipedia experience in interpreting relevant Wikipedia "policy" (guidelines, actually).  Okay, fair enough.  How about you take up the challenge I issued above?
 * Please link to the three best examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG.
 * My mind can be changed by evidence, and unlike other participants in these discussions, my only interest is in seeing the general notability guidelines properly applied in each instance. Some of these "oldest persons" articles will survive because they have significant coverage; others will not survive because they don't have significant coverage.  Can your mind be changed?  Are you willing to present actual evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage?  Can you?  That's how this exercise is supposed to be played -- it's not a shouting match where participants trade insults.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely you'll admit that in pointing out that you mistyped notability as ntoability, he well and truly vitiated all your fancy reasoning and logic. EEng (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , we don't work based on demands; We work on consensus. Your shouting-match demands that I must "link to the three best examples of significant coverage..." will be ignored because they have no more relevance than a demand that we mud wrestle, best two out of three pins, with the winner getting to choose if the article is retained. Consensus here is that your arguments (and those of EEng) simply don't fly, no matter how often you have repeated them or tried to raise the stakes. The article makes a strong claim of notability, the claim is covered by multiple reliable and verifiable sources in article that provides significant coverage of the subject. That's what counts. Accept it. Move on. Fight other battles, where you might have a better case. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alan, I'm not "shouting," but when an AfD participant declines to provide evidence of significant coverage that usually means they can't. The burden is on "keep" voters to provide such evidence.  Plenty of AfDs are wrongly decided when folks with a vested interested show up and vote in disproportionate numbers.  Requesting that "keep" voters provide their best evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources is pretty much standard operating procedure in properly conducted AfDs -- but I assume you know that, based on your 10 years of experience, right?  Simply repeating that such coverage exists is not evidence that it does, but I suspect you know that, too, right?  I strongly urge you to re-read WP:GNG, because if you really know it and understand it, then you're ignoring it.  BTW, grouping me with EEng is a mistake; I've never participated in these "oldest persons" discussions before two days ago, and my only interest in these discussions is seeing that GNG is properly enforced.  I'm sorry if you cannot accept that in good faith.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Alansohn, don't group Dirtlawyer with me. That's a really low blow. EEng (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep . I thought we've been through this before. The oldest person ever is notable, period. Consensus can change but not that fast. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep linking to WP:OUTCOMES. Where in there is anything about oldest people? EEng (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If ever this consensus you keep referring to existed at WP:OUTCOMES, or anywhere else, it has most definitely changed, or at least challenged, per the results of numerous recent AfDs. I don't mind legitimate disagreements about notability of course, but unless you clarify further, this just seems disingenuous and/or non-sensical to those nominating the article and does little to convince us to rethink our positions. Canadian   Paul  23:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is such a no-brainer; there are sources, the subject is such an outstanding superlative (#1 in the world). I think we can even cite norules here, it's just obvious this is a useful extension of the encyclopedia. Jacona (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But you haven't explained why this useful extension can't be presented just as well in the appropriate list. EEng (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel your pain, EEng, I think many subjects would be better served that way, but a "world superlative" is going to be considered worth of a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But the question isn't whether the subject is "worthy" of a standalone article, just whether that's the best way to present the subject. As NOPAGE says, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." EEng (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with the user above. Coverage in sources, oldest person in the world... meets WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Being the oldest whatever is something that just happens by chance. And NOPAGE applies abundantly, there is absolutely nothing of encyclopedic value in this article. Perhaps there's a wikia for trivia that might be interested in this stuff... --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG. This source, for example, addresses the subject directly and in detail. Just Chilling (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.